Jesus is the only way to be saved.http://www.biblegateway.com...
Liberalism is the superior philosophy.
If you are going to talk dirty to me, say it in Spanish.
I will respect you if you respect me. Otherwise, no.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

Long answer or short answer ?

Short answer to reconcile God with "evil" is because he....errrr she......errrr it, allows it.

I care for the long answer. Even if you disagree, I want to know what you believe. :)

Jesus is the only way to be saved.http://www.biblegateway.com...
Liberalism is the superior philosophy.
If you are going to talk dirty to me, say it in Spanish.
I will respect you if you respect me. Otherwise, no.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

That's okay, no sinner knows who He is anyway. Christians think they do by reading words books ( new testament books ) that the religious Romans wrote to make sure their Christians don't become saints, who did know God.

We saints know what's going on but Christians have no idea what a saint is and won't listen to us.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

So if I kicked you in the shin, that makes God not 100% good?

If God exists, that means he created someone so flawed (yourself) that they would willingly want to hurt someone. Only a being who was not omnibenevolent would create a creature like that. Either God doesn't exist, or he is not omnibenevolent.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

So if I kicked you in the shin, that makes God not 100% good?

If God exists, that means he created someone so flawed (yourself) that they would willingly want to hurt someone. Only a being who was not omnibenevolent would create a creature like that. Either God doesn't exist, or he is not omnibenevolent.

God created this delusion where man thinks good and evil exists. This delusional world will be destroyed soon and then we'll never be deceived again by what we see, hear, taste, smell or touch. Our emotions won't deceive us anymore, either.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

So if I kicked you in the shin, that makes God not 100% good?

If God exists, that means he created someone so flawed (yourself) that they would willingly want to hurt someone. Only a being who was not omnibenevolent would create a creature like that. Either God doesn't exist, or he is not omnibenevolent.

Imagine an RPG Game Developer creates an open-ended game, where he set the rules for gameplay. The game characters will have to deal with whatever is in that 3D world created. There might be skirmishes allowed to level-up and proceed with the campaign. In all that was happening in that game, can anyone from inside that 3D world sue the RPG Game Developer for making their life hard in that world? The concept of good and evil, cruelty and compassion, applies only to the creator's own perception of these notions.

Thus, I am good to my dog, though sometimes I shove his mouth away from licking my face, let him fetch the frisbee and scare him if he tries to eat my food.

At 8/20/2013 2:02:04 AM, Albert_C wrote:Imagine an RPG Game Developer creates an open-ended game, where he set the rules for gameplay. The game characters will have to deal with whatever is in that 3D world created. There might be skirmishes allowed to level-up and proceed with the campaign. In all that was happening in that game, can anyone from inside that 3D world sue the RPG Game Developer for making their life hard in that world? The concept of good and evil, cruelty and compassion, applies only to the creator's own perception of these notions.

Thus, I am good to my dog, though sometimes I shove his mouth away from licking my face, let him fetch the frisbee and scare him if he tries to eat my food.

Sure, the analogy can apply to a god that is generally good. But that is not the claim by theists, they claim God to be omnibenevolent (all-good or infinitely good). An omnibenevolent God cannot exist due to the problem of evil.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

Let's dodge free will because that's just, like, your opinion, man. How about them natural evils? Superlative god could have surely made a world with fewer natural disasters. If they served a purpose, god could have engineered them not to kill babies, who are incapable from learning from the decision or of being punished for their sins. Unless those babies in particular didn't have souls, and were just simulations for god to teach others lessons, and not actually humans.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

Let's dodge free will because that's just, like, your opinion, man. How about them natural evils? Superlative god could have surely made a world with fewer natural disasters. If they served a purpose, god could have engineered them not to kill babies, who are incapable from learning from the decision or of being punished for their sins. Unless those babies in particular didn't have souls, and were just simulations for god to teach others lessons, and not actually humans.

Free will is not a matter of opinion, though of course how, or even if, you exercise it is.

How do we know God didn't make a world freer from natural disasters?

We really do not know exactly what the earth was like when it was created. we only know that it was "good".

It is certainly far from it's original state, especially since the flood which apparently had a catastrophic effect on the structure of the earth.

I have to stress here that what follows is largely theory at best, hypothesis at worst, based on scripture and science combined.

The bible does not go into great detail on the subject, but when you compare it to what science knows it gets interesting.

The bible indicates that at first the land was all one piece - Genesis 1:9 And God went on to say: "Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear." And it came to be so.

Science agrees.

The bible decrees that at some point the continent split and drifted apart - Genesis 10:25 And to Eber there were two sons born. The name of the one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.

Science agrees.

In fact the only real dispute is over when these things happened.

Scripture tells us that there was a flood. It tells us that it started as rain and then became a deluge and the waters rose rapidly.

That is not impossible because according to scripture there were "waters above the expanse" probably in the Thermosphere, and these could easily have been brought down, maybe over the poles.

If they came down quickly enough, that would have caused catastrophic climate and geological effects, and could account for mammoths being "fast frozen" in the permafrost, as well as fracturing the earth's crust and thus forming tectonic plates.

The bible also tells us that without the water being taken back up the land "appeared".

That could be explained by the tilting of the tectonic plates, which caused the mountains to rise, and to continue to rise to this day. Even Everest is getting taller every year. It would also explain where the water went to, since if one end of the plate rose the other inevitably sank.

Of course the breaking of the crust and the tilting of the tectonic plates is the main cause of disasters such as earthquakes and tsunami.

As for disasters caused by the weather, who can say how much of that we have brought on ourselves.?

Even simple thing like laying a tarmac road where once there was a field makes a difference to the weather, how ever small, and tiny differences all add up to a big change over time.

Of course as weather changes desertification increases,

Just think how much of the earth's area is now concrete or tarmac. It is impossible to rationally deny that the influence of that is great, one only has to study the temperature differences between cities and rural areas to know that for sure.

Deforestation has also had a massive, cumulative, climactic effect, it can only have done so.

Since it was man's behaviour that brought about the flood, and man's actions appear to have made a considerable difference to weather patterns over the centuries, how much blame should we, collectively, accept for these "natural disasters"? A considerable amount I suspect.

Think about it.,

For more details, ask a Jehovah's Witness about what Jehovah's Kingdom means to them.

Sure, the analogy can apply to a god that is generally good. But that is not the claim by theists, they claim God to be omnibenevolent (all-good or infinitely good). An omnibenevolent God cannot exist due to the problem of evil.

The analogy actually pertains to where we reference what is good, the creator or the creation. From a creator's viewpoint, maybe something is good if it serves its purpose and follows its design. The goodness of God should come from his own account or somebody else which is capable of understanding his purpose and design. The perception of man of what is good and evil is not necessarily the same as how God perceives it. In the grand scheme of things, imperfections and offsets are tolerable and might be needed for a system to function properly.

Sure, the analogy can apply to a god that is generally good. But that is not the claim by theists, they claim God to be omnibenevolent (all-good or infinitely good). An omnibenevolent God cannot exist due to the problem of evil.

The analogy actually pertains to where we reference what is good, the creator or the creation. From a creator's viewpoint, maybe something is good if it serves its purpose and follows its design. The goodness of God should come from his own account or somebody else which is capable of understanding his purpose and design. The perception of man of what is good and evil is not necessarily the same as how God perceives it. In the grand scheme of things, imperfections and offsets are tolerable and might be needed for a system to function properly.

I understand that we do not know everything, and therefore could not say with absolute certainty that the world would not function properly without certain evils (imperfections). That being said, what I appeal to is our ability to reason out relative certainties of a hypothetical world. Once you think about it there seem to be many more rational and efficient alternatives to a functioning world without evil. The current world does not seem to be a rational or efficient one at all for the goals (asserted by theists) of our supposed creator. The world seems to be indifferent to humans, and all other living creatures we observe.

Sure, the analogy can apply to a god that is generally good. But that is not the claim by theists, they claim God to be omnibenevolent (all-good or infinitely good). An omnibenevolent God cannot exist due to the problem of evil.

The analogy actually pertains to where we reference what is good, the creator or the creation. From a creator's viewpoint, maybe something is good if it serves its purpose and follows its design. The goodness of God should come from his own account or somebody else which is capable of understanding his purpose and design. The perception of man of what is good and evil is not necessarily the same as how God perceives it. In the grand scheme of things, imperfections and offsets are tolerable and might be needed for a system to function properly.

Good answer.

God is all benevolent, when he is allowed to be.

Allowed to be?

Can God be controlled?

Part of what makes God completely benevolent is the fact that he is controlled by self imposed standards of morality formed from his balance of Love Wisdom Justice mercy.

It is for the sake of complete justice, and the perfect answer to Satan's challenge that he has had to allow evil for a limited time, which limit we are rapidly nearing the end of now.

The trouble with Justice it not only has to be done, it has to be seen to be done by all. truly benevolent God recognises the need for perfect justice.

For more details, ask a Jehovah's Witness about what Jehovah's Kingdom means to them.

Sure, the analogy can apply to a god that is generally good. But that is not the claim by theists, they claim God to be omnibenevolent (all-good or infinitely good). An omnibenevolent God cannot exist due to the problem of evil.

The analogy actually pertains to where we reference what is good, the creator or the creation. From a creator's viewpoint, maybe something is good if it serves its purpose and follows its design. The goodness of God should come from his own account or somebody else which is capable of understanding his purpose and design. The perception of man of what is good and evil is not necessarily the same as how God perceives it. In the grand scheme of things, imperfections and offsets are tolerable and might be needed for a system to function properly.

I understand that we do not know everything, and therefore could not say with absolute certainty that the world would not function properly without certain evils (imperfections). That being said, what I appeal to is our ability to reason out relative certainties of a hypothetical world. Once you think about it there seem to be many more rational and efficient alternatives to a functioning world without evil. The current world does not seem to be a rational or efficient one at all for the goals (asserted by theists) of our supposed creator. The world seems to be indifferent to humans, and all other living creatures we observe.

The world will function far better when evil has been finally removed and mankind is returned to perfection.

For more details, ask a Jehovah's Witness about what Jehovah's Kingdom means to them.

I understand that we do not know everything, and therefore could not say with absolute certainty that the world would not function properly without certain evils (imperfections). That being said, what I appeal to is our ability to reason out relative certainties of a hypothetical world. Once you think about it there seem to be many more rational and efficient alternatives to a functioning world without evil. The current world does not seem to be a rational or efficient one at all for the goals (asserted by theists) of our supposed creator. The world seems to be indifferent to humans, and all other living creatures we observe.

Yup, I also don't know what God is thinking in creating all these sorts of things we see, feel, and experience. I was not able to go farther up north, above the sky, or at the edge of the universe to see the boundaries. I cannot dig deeper into the ground, sail to the depths of the sea or be in-between of quarks so I can fathom what it means to be small. I can only understand things that are within my boundaries. I can only say something is better, based on what I experience.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

Let's dodge free will because that's just, like, your opinion, man. How about them natural evils? Superlative god could have surely made a world with fewer natural disasters. If they served a purpose, god could have engineered them not to kill babies, who are incapable from learning from the decision or of being punished for their sins. Unless those babies in particular didn't have souls, and were just simulations for god to teach others lessons, and not actually humans.

Free will is not a matter of opinion, though of course how, or even if, you exercise it is.

How do we know God didn't make a world freer from natural disasters?

We really do not know exactly what the earth was like when it was created. we only know that it was "good".

It is certainly far from it's original state, especially since the flood which apparently had a catastrophic effect on the structure of the earth.

I have to stress here that what follows is largely theory at best, hypothesis at worst, based on scripture and science combined.

The bible does not go into great detail on the subject, but when you compare it to what science knows it gets interesting.

The bible indicates that at first the land was all one piece - Genesis 1:9 And God went on to say: "Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear." And it came to be so.

Science agrees.

The bible decrees that at some point the continent split and drifted apart - Genesis 10:25 And to Eber there were two sons born. The name of the one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.

Science agrees.

In fact the only real dispute is over when these things happened.

Scripture tells us that there was a flood. It tells us that it started as rain and then became a deluge and the waters rose rapidly.

That is not impossible because according to scripture there were "waters above the expanse" probably in the Thermosphere, and these could easily have been brought down, maybe over the poles.

If they came down quickly enough, that would have caused catastrophic climate and geological effects, and could account for mammoths being "fast frozen" in the permafrost, as well as fracturing the earth's crust and thus forming tectonic plates.

The bible also tells us that without the water being taken back up the land "appeared".

That could be explained by the tilting of the tectonic plates, which caused the mountains to rise, and to continue to rise to this day. Even Everest is getting taller every year. It would also explain where the water went to, since if one end of the plate rose the other inevitably sank.

Of course the breaking of the crust and the tilting of the tectonic plates is the main cause of disasters such as earthquakes and tsunami.

As for disasters caused by the weather, who can say how much of that we have brought on ourselves.?

Even simple thing like laying a tarmac road where once there was a field makes a difference to the weather, how ever small, and tiny differences all add up to a big change over time.

Of course as weather changes desertification increases,

Just think how much of the earth's area is now concrete or tarmac. It is impossible to rationally deny that the influence of that is great, one only has to study the temperature differences between cities and rural areas to know that for sure.

Deforestation has also had a massive, cumulative, climactic effect, it can only have done so.

Since it was man's behaviour that brought about the flood, and man's actions appear to have made a considerable difference to weather patterns over the centuries, how much blame should we, collectively, accept for these "natural disasters"? A considerable amount I suspect.

Think about it.,

We saints know exactly how God created the earth and all that's in and on it.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

So if I kicked you in the shin, that makes God not 100% good?

If God exists, that means he created someone so flawed (yourself) that they would willingly want to hurt someone. Only a being who was not omnibenevolent would create a creature like that. Either God doesn't exist, or he is not omnibenevolent.

+1

Well I don't know about "omnibenevolent" but God created someone like Himself who can choose who has unguarded potential. God could also kick you in the shin but chooses not to. We were created with the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, with free reign same as God who has both knowledge of good and evil but chooses good. In other words God didn't create someone to kick people in the shins, they were created with the ability to act as they feel and wish, but with consequences.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

I believe all evil is man made. I believe that we intentionally look for "evil" in any situation. In the moments of focusing on what evil is and how it affects us, we forget how it will affect others or how it will mold our character for the future. We have a choice to either overcome the evil or let it muster and potentially grow, it is not only ourselves who will be effected by it, but the people around us as well.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

I believe all evil is man made. I believe that we intentionally look for "evil" in any situation. In the moments of focusing on what evil is and how it affects us, we forget how it will affect others or how it will mold our character for the future. We have a choice to either overcome the evil or let it muster and potentially grow, it is not only ourselves who will be effected by it, but the people around us as well.

I think God lets evil exist because he believes we can overcome it and achieve something that we wouldn't have achieved without evil.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

So if I kicked you in the shin, that makes God not 100% good?

If God exists, that means he created someone so flawed (yourself) that they would willingly want to hurt someone. Only a being who was not omnibenevolent would create a creature like that. Either God doesn't exist, or he is not omnibenevolent.

+1

Well I don't know about "omnibenevolent" but God created someone like Himself who can choose who has unguarded potential. God could also kick you in the shin but chooses not to. We were created with the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, with free reign same as God who has both knowledge of good and evil but chooses good. In other words God didn't create someone to kick people in the shins, they were created with the ability to act as they feel and wish, but with consequences.

I would agree that we have an innate sense of good (probably does not count as knowledge per se). If God is all-knowing, then he created mass murderers with the knowledge that they would commit evil and horrendous crimes. I am justified in saying this even if I admit the point that humans have free will. If God knows every single action we will make, it does not constitute as him being the cause of that action, rather he just knows what action we will choose evil, or not. So no matter how you phrase the free will argument, God is either lacking in omnibenevolence, omniscience, or omnipotence.

I understand that we do not know everything, and therefore could not say with absolute certainty that the world would not function properly without certain evils (imperfections). That being said, what I appeal to is our ability to reason out relative certainties of a hypothetical world. Once you think about it there seem to be many more rational and efficient alternatives to a functioning world without evil. The current world does not seem to be a rational or efficient one at all for the goals (asserted by theists) of our supposed creator. The world seems to be indifferent to humans, and all other living creatures we observe.

Yup, I also don't know what God is thinking in creating all these sorts of things we see, feel, and experience. I was not able to go farther up north, above the sky, or at the edge of the universe to see the boundaries. I cannot dig deeper into the ground, sail to the depths of the sea or be in-between of quarks so I can fathom what it means to be small. I can only understand things that are within my boundaries. I can only say something is better, based on what I experience.

Don't be such a downer, I think us humans have an excellent model of our universe today, we do not need to experience everything for ourselves we trust scientists to know that Saturn exists without having to experience the process of actually looking at Saturn with a telescope. We humans, in our rigorous quest for knowledge become one supremely knowledgeable group when we combine our expertise in all fields and allow our combined discoveries and information to be accessible to all. In this day and age we can say with a relatively high amount of certainty, how an alternate world would function by just rationalizing its consequences.

I understand that we do not know everything, and therefore could not say with absolute certainty that the world would not function properly without certain evils (imperfections). That being said, what I appeal to is our ability to reason out relative certainties of a hypothetical world. Once you think about it there seem to be many more rational and efficient alternatives to a functioning world without evil. The current world does not seem to be a rational or efficient one at all for the goals (asserted by theists) of our supposed creator. The world seems to be indifferent to humans, and all other living creatures we observe.

Yup, I also don't know what God is thinking in creating all these sorts of things we see, feel, and experience. I was not able to go farther up north, above the sky, or at the edge of the universe to see the boundaries. I cannot dig deeper into the ground, sail to the depths of the sea or be in-between of quarks so I can fathom what it means to be small. I can only understand things that are within my boundaries. I can only say something is better, based on what I experience.

Don't be such a downer, I think us humans have an excellent model of our universe today, we do not need to experience everything for ourselves we trust scientists to know that Saturn exists without having to experience the process of actually looking at Saturn with a telescope. We humans, in our rigorous quest for knowledge become one supremely knowledgeable group when we combine our expertise in all fields and allow our combined discoveries and information to be accessible to all. In this day and age we can say with a relatively high amount of certainty, how an alternate world would function by just rationalizing its consequences.

You might think so, but that is only because you don't realise how much we do not know.

For more details, ask a Jehovah's Witness about what Jehovah's Kingdom means to them.

At 8/19/2013 12:23:26 AM, SitaraPorDios wrote:Seriously. I am having so many doubts about God right now.

So if I kicked you in the shin, that makes God not 100% good?

If God exists, that means he created someone so flawed (yourself) that they would willingly want to hurt someone. Only a being who was not omnibenevolent would create a creature like that. Either God doesn't exist, or he is not omnibenevolent.

+1

Well I don't know about "omnibenevolent" but God created someone like Himself who can choose who has unguarded potential. God could also kick you in the shin but chooses not to. We were created with the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, with free reign same as God who has both knowledge of good and evil but chooses good. In other words God didn't create someone to kick people in the shins, they were created with the ability to act as they feel and wish, but with consequences.

I would agree that we have an innate sense of good (probably does not count as knowledge per se). If God is all-knowing, then he created mass murderers with the knowledge that they would commit evil and horrendous crimes. I am justified in saying this even if I admit the point that humans have free will. If God knows every single action we will make, it does not constitute as him being the cause of that action, rather he just knows what action we will choose evil, or not. So no matter how you phrase the free will argument, God is either lacking in omnibenevolence, omniscience, or omnipotence.

Unfortunately it is a very flawed sense of good, and some of the things that some think are good are in fact very bad indeed.

For more details, ask a Jehovah's Witness about what Jehovah's Kingdom means to them.